chl-6
Entrou em jan. de 2000
Bem-vindo(a) ao novo perfil
Nossas atualizações ainda estão em desenvolvimento. Embora a versão anterior do perfil não esteja mais acessível, estamos trabalhando ativamente em melhorias, e alguns dos recursos ausentes retornarão em breve! Fique atento ao retorno deles. Enquanto isso, Análise de Classificação ainda está disponível em nossos aplicativos iOS e Android, encontrados na página de perfil. Para visualizar suas Distribuições de Classificação por ano e gênero, consulte nossa nova Guia de ajuda.
Selos2
Para saber como ganhar selos, acesse página de ajuda de selos.
Avaliações7
Classificação de chl-6
Well, it's different, that's for sure.
I took this movie out on video because I was in the mood for something different, and on that front it certainly fulfilled my expectations. On the other hand, I was also after something entertaining, and on that front it - unfortunately - didn't, except in fragments.
The film starts with Steven Soderbergh blowing a metaphorical rasberry at the audience, standing in front of the movie screen advising (not an exact quote, just a paraphrase) - "This is the most important movie you will ever see. If you do not understand it, the fault is yours, not ours, and you should see it again and again until you do understand it, and at full price too."
It then follows a small cast of characters (some of whom can't act... or maybe that's the point?) in a series of intersecting stories... though if you can articulate the plotlines you're a better person that I! There's some sort of satire on Scientology, though as I know almost nothing about that particular cult/religion the allusions unfortunately pass me by. I guess, though, that John Travolta is unlikely to make a movie with Soderbergh anytime soon.
I did enjoy a few bits, particularly when Soderbergh is playing with the conventions of film making (like deliberately having the boom mike "accidentally" drop into shot). Favourite among these is when he has his characters talking in a kind of meta dialogue, a cinematic shorthand which comes across like the actors are reading off the film's treatment rather than script. Ie, instead of saying things like "Hi Honey, I'm home. How are the kids?" they say something along the lines of "Banal greeting to wife. Obligatory inquiry after offspring."
Unfortunately these moments are too few. This would have made an interesting short subject, but at over an hour and a half it really didn't sustain my interest.
Guess I'm a traditionalist at heart.
I took this movie out on video because I was in the mood for something different, and on that front it certainly fulfilled my expectations. On the other hand, I was also after something entertaining, and on that front it - unfortunately - didn't, except in fragments.
The film starts with Steven Soderbergh blowing a metaphorical rasberry at the audience, standing in front of the movie screen advising (not an exact quote, just a paraphrase) - "This is the most important movie you will ever see. If you do not understand it, the fault is yours, not ours, and you should see it again and again until you do understand it, and at full price too."
It then follows a small cast of characters (some of whom can't act... or maybe that's the point?) in a series of intersecting stories... though if you can articulate the plotlines you're a better person that I! There's some sort of satire on Scientology, though as I know almost nothing about that particular cult/religion the allusions unfortunately pass me by. I guess, though, that John Travolta is unlikely to make a movie with Soderbergh anytime soon.
I did enjoy a few bits, particularly when Soderbergh is playing with the conventions of film making (like deliberately having the boom mike "accidentally" drop into shot). Favourite among these is when he has his characters talking in a kind of meta dialogue, a cinematic shorthand which comes across like the actors are reading off the film's treatment rather than script. Ie, instead of saying things like "Hi Honey, I'm home. How are the kids?" they say something along the lines of "Banal greeting to wife. Obligatory inquiry after offspring."
Unfortunately these moments are too few. This would have made an interesting short subject, but at over an hour and a half it really didn't sustain my interest.
Guess I'm a traditionalist at heart.
An interesting adaption of the story. The screenplay writer John Gay has added about 30 minutes worth of backstory and recounts Valjean's initial theft of the bread, trial and almost 20 years imprisonment in some detail before getting to the scene with the Bishop, which is where the 1000+ page books _starts_!
He has included notable scenes and characters from the book - such as Marius' misunderstanding with his grandfather (played by John Gielgud) and Monsieur Madeline's housekeeper who never lies, Sister Simplice. However, he has also cut many others - notably the whole subplot with Thenardier's gang in Paris, practically all of the students' interactions and the character of Eponine. Further, he has chosen to include some scenes which I certainly would never think of as essential or even substantive, such as the convoluted means of getting Valjean back into the convent where he and Cosette spend 10 years.
The effect of these interesting choices is twofold: Firstly, this movie is very much Valjean's story, with many of the other characters given short shrift. (Javert is an exception.) Secondly, the pacing is somewhat uneven - inclusion of short scenes such as those with Marius' grandfather imply a more detailed backdrop to each of the other characters, but ultimately appear tacked on. Some of the "chase" scenes also come across as gratuitous and lack tension.
The fact that this is a made-for-TV movie comes out in a limited budget and the periodic fade outs between scenes.
On the plus side, Anthony Perkins gives a wonderfully controlled performance as Javert (standout scene for me was his confrontation with Sister Simplice), and Richard Jordan is sympathetic, if somewhat babyfaced even as an old man.
Lovers of that great "kids" TV show Press Gang (highly recommended BTW) will get a kick out of spotting a young Dexter Fletcher as Gavroche.
He has included notable scenes and characters from the book - such as Marius' misunderstanding with his grandfather (played by John Gielgud) and Monsieur Madeline's housekeeper who never lies, Sister Simplice. However, he has also cut many others - notably the whole subplot with Thenardier's gang in Paris, practically all of the students' interactions and the character of Eponine. Further, he has chosen to include some scenes which I certainly would never think of as essential or even substantive, such as the convoluted means of getting Valjean back into the convent where he and Cosette spend 10 years.
The effect of these interesting choices is twofold: Firstly, this movie is very much Valjean's story, with many of the other characters given short shrift. (Javert is an exception.) Secondly, the pacing is somewhat uneven - inclusion of short scenes such as those with Marius' grandfather imply a more detailed backdrop to each of the other characters, but ultimately appear tacked on. Some of the "chase" scenes also come across as gratuitous and lack tension.
The fact that this is a made-for-TV movie comes out in a limited budget and the periodic fade outs between scenes.
On the plus side, Anthony Perkins gives a wonderfully controlled performance as Javert (standout scene for me was his confrontation with Sister Simplice), and Richard Jordan is sympathetic, if somewhat babyfaced even as an old man.
Lovers of that great "kids" TV show Press Gang (highly recommended BTW) will get a kick out of spotting a young Dexter Fletcher as Gavroche.